Taking a swipe at the "anti's"

[Jack Lawman]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by John -Melb:
<strong>
The is a torso, wearing jeans, a shirt or jacket, and carrying a SPORTING FIREARM or SHOTTIE. Cant tell for sure what firearm it is.

The torso, IS NOT carrying an AK47, an RPG, a decapitated head, or dressed like Osama Bin Loader. He or she is carrying a SPORTING FIREARM.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">At the risk of becoming an annoyance (and PLEASE let me know if this is how I am being perceived), this comment strikes at the heart of MY argument. SPORTING ARMS have very little to do with the second ammendment. The ORIGINAL INTENT of the second ammendment is NOT to ensure the legality of sporting firearms and the enjoyment of hunting for future generations. The ORIGINAL INTENT is to ensure an equality between the citizens and their government.

Trust me, you would not want to face today's modern SWAT teams with an over/under and a Remington Model 700. If you are defending the second ammendment, you cause as much harm as good by differentiating between SPORTING and PERSONAL DEFENSE firearms. PERSONAL DEFENSE firearms are the ones most connected to and protected by our second ammendment. Like I stated on a previous post on this thread, "self-evident truths of the second ammendment kind are a little scary for some, really scary for most." A classic "anti" tactic is to espouse affection for SPORTING FIREARMS. You play into their hands by bolstering this distinction. It then becomes easier to "ban" the "bad ones", the ones which stand ready to resist tyranny.

Problem with my argument is that it becomes SO EASY for the antis to paint you as one who wishes to overthrow the government. In my case, this couldn't be further from the truth. I wish Americans remain faithful to the second ammendment so that I DON'T EVER have to work to overthow the government.

Jack

P.S. John-Melb,
I am aware that Australia does not operate under the auspices of the U.S. Constitution (in particular our Bill of Rights). I am using your post to illustrate what I believe is an attitude indicative of a losing long-term strategy often employed by well intentioned defenders of our second ammendment.